Please refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.

CX Teams: Aff starts the email chain ASAP.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org

high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually running tournaments, as such, i'm not really keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. anymore. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.

--

hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep,

I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND MONOTONE READERS.if you're spreading you need to enunciate the tags at least. please ask for clarification on this.

general stuff:

1. you as the debater have 1 job: tell me, the judge, how to vote. i value impact calcs, world comparisons, and depth over breadth on all flows. if you're running framework, keep it alive till the end of the debate because i love an easy vote. keep your args and flows organized so that by the 2AR/2NR you have a clear flight path for your future ballot.
2. if you're non-black and running black args as gotchas, i'm going to break tabroom giving you extremely low speaks.
3. nearly all spreading speeds are fine, but i will always value clarity over reading a bunch of stuff, especially if you're unable to speak clearly, or get quieter as you spread.
4. on that, neg teams that read 17 half assed args (CP with no plan text, K with no alt, DA with no impacts etc) are wasting their time, the other team's time, and most importantly, my time. don't do it, you will not get my ballot.
5. i dock speaks for being rude to your partner or opponents. the competition is never serious enough to warrant actual malice or bad vibes in or out of a round.
6. i'm not a very technical judge. the last thing i want to do at the end of a round is pull evidence and spend 10 minutes going back and forth with myself. to coaches: if you have novice or jv debaters who are on the cusp of transition into a higher division, i'm the judge for them.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/Philosophy Debate/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

I do want on the e-mail chain: mmcoleman10@gmail.com

Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.

Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.

Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.

2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.

3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.

4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.

5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.

Ways to impress me

1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.

2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.

3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.

Topicality

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.

I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.

Topicality - K Affs

I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.

I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.

Counterplans/Disads

I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.

Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.

K's

I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.

Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.

Glen Frappier

Gonzaga University

Years Judging College: 24

Updated for 23-24

Rounds Judged on Nukes Topic: ZERO. FREE STRIKE!

If there is an email chain going around with the speech docs please include me. gfrappier@gmail.com.

I appreciate smart, quick and clear debate. If you’re unclear I will let you know once or twice but after that it’s on you.

I prefer argument characterized by depth and substance and generally despise when a laundry list of unwarranted claims is passed off as good argument. The best debates seem to be those where the debaters are doing a lot of comparison of the arguments and evidence. I always thought Ross Smith's lecture on "Extending An Argument" did an excellent job of capturing the essence of the depth I appreciate. If you haven't seen it, you really should google it.

Speaker Points. I find I award speaker points based on the 3 broad categories or content, organization, and delivery. A smart, quick, articulate debater who reads good evidence, makes well reasoned arguments, and effectively manages the flow can expect good points. Flashes of brilliance and displays of exceptional debating are always rewarded. Poor debating, bad evidence, being mean, poor decision-making will all hurt your points. The scale has clear trended up over the last few years and I intend to adapt to those broader trends.

Evidence. This is the lifeblood of a persuasive argument. We all interpret evidence differently so if yours is open to multiple interpretation tell me what your reading of it is and why thats the preferable interpretation. It should be qualified. Evidence from experts in a field with a lifetime of experience thinking, researching, writing and publishing on topic is more persuasive than a blogger with no credentials, or an undergrad working on their degree.

The affirmative should advocate for a topical example of the resolution. I’m open to different interpretations of how plans/advocacy should function, but I tend to believe that a community agreed upon controversy/topic serves as a valuable point of stasis.

Cross Examination is binding. I do my best to pay attention and flow CX. Great CXs payoff in points (and sometimes wins).

Counterplans. There are those I find more of a stretch than others theoretically, but generally tend to err neg on most theory questions.

Critiques. Sure, why not. If you have a link to the aff and an impact then it sounds like you have an argument and i'll listen to it. Still, i don't read much K lit these days and probably will not be familiar with the literature you're relying on for your argument. In those cases its in your interest to slow down and explain.

Trond Jacobsen, Director of Forensics and University Forum, University of Oregon

Ph.D. in Information Science, University of Michigan

Bachelor of Science in Sociology, University of Oregon

First competed for South Eugene (OR) High School in policy debate and speech events in 1985. Involved in collegiate forensics for about half of my adult life, including debating for Oregon from 1989-1992 in CEDA and as an educator at Alaska, Cornell, Vermont, and Oregon in policy debate. Director of Forensics and University Forum since 2013 and a Sr. Career Instructor in Information Science in the Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon.

As described in our governance documents, which I helped write and edit, the Collegiate Advocacy, Research and Debate (CARD) format prioritizes creating an enriching educational experience where students can develop abilities relevant to participating in modern and diverse democratic societies. Core learning objectives include the ability to form and present persuasive oral arguments to diverse audiences, identifying the properties of strong and weak arguments, apprehending, organizing and mobilizing scholarship, and building and sustaining collaborations with others, including people of differing backgrounds and perspectives. I view CARD as a distinct form of evidence-based policy debate, built from the ground up to realize these learning objectives. CARD shares surface features with other debate formats but it differs - and should be viewed by participants as different - in ways that are important to me as a professional and when adjudicating debates in CARD. At its best, CARD debates position students to engage and explore deep controversies rooted in recent academic scholarship on salient issues of public and social policy while developing abilities in advocacy and persuasion designed for a general educated audience and not merely debate coaches. All CARD participants - students, critics, and educators – share the fundamental responsibility to sustain a welcoming learning environment.

When adjudicating debates in the CARD format, I am an educator not merely an umpire. My responsibility is to teach students how to make their arguments and advocacy more effective and persuasive. My decisions about round outcomes and my evaluation of individual debaters as advocates are informed and motivated by my commitment to the pedagogical mission of the CARD format. As such, my role can include intervening in debates, sometimes as they are occurring and sometimes in how I render decisions about the debate, in furtherance of the CARD mission. I am not a tabula rasa judge but rather a critic of argument, an educator tasked to help students engage important topics and acquire powerful transferrable skills in advocacy and argumentation. If a speaker presents an incoherent or incomplete argument I may choose to disregard that argument whether or not it receives a response from the other team. If the other team describes why an argument is incoherent or incomplete they are more likely to be viewed as the better debaters and more likely to be evaluated highly as debate speakers.

1. Affirmative burden of proof. The primary question in CARD is whether the affirmative team has successfully discharged their burden of proof through an advocacy for the proposition. The “burden of proof” is the obligation to prove with clear and convincing arguments, including evidence cards, that a specific topical plan of action is a necessary and sufficient response to problems presented in the same speech. In Winter and Spring 2025 the affirmative team must offer a plan in which the United States federal government adopts one of the following policies: a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, or removal of fossil fuel subsidies. The First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) must make a case for change in the form of a federal plan in one of those four areas. The 1AC should establish the parameters of their plan (e.g., the form of the emissions trading scheme or the nature of federal authority applied to build a new national transmission grid). The 1AC must include evidence cards that explain why the affirmative plan, if adopted, would substantially solve the harms foregrounded. The best 1ACs start with a strong solvency advocate, find compelling evidence cards from that advocate, design their plan around that advocacy, and address harms that advocate believes the plan would address.

2. Negative burden of rejoinder. Negative teams bear the “burden of rejoinder”, with the responsibility to refute and undermine the specific arguments offered by the affirmative. Negative teams may introduce their own change advocacy, accepting the burden of proof for those arguments as competitive tests of affirmative advocacy. Counterplans without a solvency advocate typically suffer. Negative teams can win a debate by proving the affirmative has not met their burden of proof.

3. Debate is not merely a game. Students should not view debates in CARD as merely a political simulation or strategy game but instead an educational opportunity and environment for engaging scholarship on controversial topics of public and social policy and developing effective advocacy and argumentation skills. Respect your opponents and their ideas. Effective advocacy requires engaging others. Listen and be honest and open-minded.

4. Advocacy and persuasion. Avoid debate jargon and belligerence. Imagine you are speaking to an educated and informed non-debater in making your language choices and explaining arguments. I am familiar with (most) debate jargon but think it better for debaters to learn to make coherent arguments without debate jargon. Do not appeal with the tired vocabulary of other formats such as “offense-defense” or “try or die” or “perm”. Instead make eloquent arguments and develop generalized advocacy skills. I do not enjoy tag team cross-examination. The surest way to lose my support as a critic is to adopt an overtly belligerent or combative affect or use words to demean or diminish others or their ideas. I believe it is in the practice of advocacy that CARD should most clearly differentiate itself from other debate formats. Speak clearly and with conviction. Use the full range of abilities available to humans in advocacy. Be dynamic and engaging; don't merely read arguments prepared by others.

5. Procedural or theory argumentation. The team initiating a procedural or theory dispute should commit to it and not deploy it as a distraction. Procedural arguments are narrow questions of fact. For example, rather than a debate about whether an entire class of counterplans is competitive/fair, focus on whether the counterplan at hand is competitive or fair, ideally using evidence. Rather than argue that a particular interpretation of the topic creates the potential for abuse, identify the specific abuse arising from a particular interpretation in the current round.

6. Conditional and contradictory arguments. CARD discourages conditional and intentionally contradictory argumentation in favor of argumentation grounded in sound principles of advocacy. Maintain worldview consistency and make strategic decisions about which arguments to initiate and defend throughout a debate.

7. Fiat: A constrained power. CARD uses a theory of fiat that is limited and reciprocal. Fiat is the assumption that practical or timely obstacles to enacting a plan (e.g., lack of political support or a legal barrier) are set aside for the debate. Teams are limited to a sufficient level of fiat necessary for upholding their burden of proof in advocating change. Fiat is limited to the agency – scope of potential action – of the topic’s relevant actor, established through the presentation of a solvency advocate. Fiat in CARDS is reciprocal; limitations apply equally to the affirmative and negative. Institutional structures can be fiated, subject to the above limitations, but mindsets and masses of people cannot be fiated in CARD debate.

8. Evidence cards. Only evidence cards extracted from documents published in the Community Library can be introduced into a CARD round. No materials outside the library can be quoted in a CARD round. Evidence cards from documents outside the library will be disregarded. In the Open Division, if a team identifies and explains how the other team has quoted an evidence card from a document not in the library, they will win that debate regardless of other arguments in the debate. When reading an evidence card for the first time please provide the qualifications for each cited author. A speaker cannot earn full points in the Evidence and Analysis category unless they fully adhere to this standard. Subsequent use of evidence cards from a source need not include qualifications. Evidence cards are not mere argument tools but opportunities to engage and share leading scholarship to build knowledge and hone the skills of intellectual advocacy. Respect evidence cards as one would respect their authors in intellectual conversation.

Hello! My name is Kay Karlin and my pronouns are they/them. In high school I did four years of LD debate and two of congress. I've judged policy, PF and LD for five years. It is most important to me that competitions understand their own arguments and are able to convince me.

For all debate: email for email chains is kaykarlin6@gmail.com I understand technology issues but I set a timer for 5 minutes for any wifi/email/google doc confusion. Anything past 5 minutes comes out of prep time!

Extentions should include Year, Author, Tagline, idc what order, but you must include all these!

Arguments against people's identities, basic human rights, or that are aligned with racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated and will get you dropped and reported to your coach. ALSO, if Generative AI is used in case construction, I will drop you and report you to your coach.

I am open to speed, but I will say clear if I can't understand you. However, as a coach and in general I am anti-spreading. I think that spreading is bad for debate, because it encourages us to make the space more inaccessible in order to win arguments. Again, I am fine with speed, you can spread in front of me, but I think that we should make a shift as a community away from spreading.

LD Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues but I'm open to Ks/CPs/Theory so long as you can sustain your argument. If you NEED to run seven off cases to solve inequity in the debate space, I want to give you the space to do that. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated. (Do not run disclosure theory with me. It's bad for debate/small school accessibility and I will drop you.)

Definition debate is boring!!! Have a productive discourse!

For Ks-- my threshold is a bit higher but I never want to prevent you from making arguments you're passionate about. Just be prepared to highlight/defend/extend your link, impact, and alt. (Fine with K-affs, Identity Ks, etc)

I will drop speaker points for prefacing. (Using your time to question your opponent to frontload your case with arguments that haven't yet been presented in round)

DO NOT DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE-- all of your impacts should be evaluated (and will be evaluated by me) under the framework. I do like to see competing ideas of frameworks, but I understand that timing makes that difficult, but I want to see debate about which world creates more benefit.

If you plan to debate in LD like it's Policy-lite I am not the judge for you. Framework is one of the most important things to me.

Policy Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues, and I'm not a huge fan of theory, but debate is your world and I'm just living in it while we're in round and I'm open to whatever you can justify. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated.

I love to see speeches explicitly comparing the Aff and Neg plans and impact calculations based off that. Prove to me why your argument is better.

Tag Teaming for CX is fine, but I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space, but I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

PF Paradigm:

PF is the area of debate in which I have the least experience, but I like to see a healthy clash.

I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space.

I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

Judge Paradigm

Kirstin Kiledal

I view the round as a game with the debaters seeking to maximize their outcomes. Strategic thinking, particularly how debaters manage risk, timing, resource allocation (including prep time, cross examination, evidence), and argument—both as individual units tactically, as well as across the round strategically. You should anticipate your opponent's arguments and counter-strategies effectively.

1. Role of Evidence:
   Evidence plays a significant role, but it must be analyzed strategically. It’s not enough to throw out random studies or sources. Understand and use concepts such as recency and quality effectively. I evaluate how well debaters use evidence to support their claims and how they leverage it to advance their strategic objectives (impact calculus, framing, and refutation). In addition, I expect debaters to remember that while evidence is important, it should not be used to derail common sense and general arguments. While the debate is an academic exercise, it should not fall to sophism. Use evidence and argument effectively to create a strong argument that gives your side a clear advantage.
2. Clash and Impact Framing:
   A debate round is most valuable when there is direct clash. I will not reward you for talking past your opponent’s points; rather, I want to see you engage with their arguments and demonstrate why your approach leads to better outcomes. Framing generally is important—your case should have a story. Impact framing is essential: Explain not just why your argument is correct, but also why it’s more significant, urgent, or solvable than the opponent’s.
3. If you introduce an argument with a significant level of uncertainty, make sure to weigh that risk against your opponent’s claim. For example, if your opponent’s argument is well-supported and clear, but your counter is speculative or less proven, this could affect my decision. Similarly, you should weigh arguments in terms of importance and solvability.
4. Debaters should demonstrate flexibility. Debate is dynamic; be prepared to evolve as well as extend your argument.
5. While substance is the primary focus, I value clear, concise, and effective delivery. Good structure and clear tags and signposting help me follow your strategy. A strong performance will enhance the perception of your arguments and my evaluation of them.
6. Speaker points will be given based on clarity, engagement with the round, strategic depth, and how well you execute your arguments. I value strategic moves that reflect a deep understanding of the topic and the broader consequences of the arguments you are presenting. While evidence is cited in CARD from within the library, arguments may, I would argue, require general knowledge of the topic beyond the library.

How I Vote:

• I will likely vote on the flow, weighing the arguments based on their strategic relevance and clarity. I look at how well you frame impacts, weigh them relative to the opponent's case, and demonstrate how your argument leads to a superior policy outcome.
• I also place importance on strategic decision-making—how you shift your arguments, respond to your opponent's case, and adapt to changing circumstances within the round. A successful debater will always play the game with the long-term strategy in mind.
• Finally, I will focus on clash. You must address your opponent's arguments directly, and I expect a clear defense of your position.

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his--call me Josh

I am beginning to judge events other than policy, but I have almost zero experience with different forms of debate. Because of this, I will judge LD like 1v1 policy. For my CARD paradigm, jump to the bottom of my paradigm.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

Personal information:

School conflicts (my affiliation): Minnesota (debater/coach), Glenbrook North (debater), Como Park (coach)

I am not sure if this is appropriate to have in my paradigm but I think it's relevant when we live in a country whose future is so unsure and bleak. I have become increasingly disillusioned and cynical about positive (federal government) changes in real life. I do think that the USFG could and should be doing various things to make life on this planet for all people better, but the reality is quite the opposite. Questions about how the current government can be trusted to do anything "good" are constantly swirling in my head. Fiat likely solves most of these concerns in-round but I do wonder what my actual threshold is when it comes to solvency/circumvention questions because it seems debaters of any skill levels are reluctant to go for these types of arguments in the final rebuttals.

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

For online debates, please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. Solid audio quality is important, so I recommend using a headset or microphone.

The most important thing in this paradigm:

Please slow down (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

The second most important thing in this paradigm:

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another instead of simply in vacuums.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech---------------x--------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it.

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory----------------------------------------x----- Substance -- condo is the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose". I am a poor judge for reasons to reject the team that relate to personal or out-of-round reasons.

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad. Also, answer the case, please.

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates.

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. If you don't have good decorum, e.g. you are hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist, etc. I will certainly dock your speaks.

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground. I'm a 2N at heart.

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright.

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

Speaks:

I try to give out speaker points that represent how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, using footnotes instead of citing evidence in a card format like debaters have been doing forever, 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped), new args and extrapolations in the rebuttals, late-breaking debates, and assuming I know topic acronyms and jargon.

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. clean energy and IP. Ultimately, I feel that the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves many other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses.This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game. This framing structures how I view "T/FW = violent" and "policy debate is irredeemable" types of arguments. I am usually unconvinced by those args because saying you should read a topical plan doesn't meet the threshold of violence for me, and if policy debate was indeed irredeemable, I wouldn't be in the back of the room judging you.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

CARD paradigm:

Background: I was a policy debater in both high school and college. I have coached policy and CARD debate at the University of Minnesota for 4 years.

My role as a judge: CARD is a cool format because it simplifies the most tasking aspect of policy debate, open-ended research, so debaters can focus on improving their argumentation and public speaking skills. My RoJ is that of an educator first and a critic of arguments second. I will also vote for the team that does the best debating.

Specific argument preferences: The aff should defend a topical plan and the neg has the burden of rejoinder (AKA proving that the status quo or competitive alternative is better than passing the plan). The neg can read whatever DAs, CPs, Ks, and case answers they want, assuming they come from the library. T is iffy in this format and should only be brought up if the aff doesn't defend a plan or reads a plan very clearly not under the resolution. Theory is often a tough sell in this format, although I am down to vote on disclosure theory and condo.

Judge intervention: I will try not to intervene in the debate. Things that cross this line include threats of violence to other debaters, blatant racism, sexism, ableism, etc., reading an aff without a plan text, and reading evidence outside of the library. If any of these things come up, I reserve the right to end the debate and give the offending team a loss.

Opinions on this topic: Critiques of capitalism are by far the best arguments the neg can deploy on this topic. The LNG DA is likely a close second.

Boring biographical information: Debated at UMKC & ESU (RIP to ESU, overjoyed UMKC has returned) 2002-2005 & 2008-2010. Assistant director at Emporia State 2012-2014, director of debate at Emporia state 2016-2023, current director at Johnson County Community College.

Clarity note:

It has become extremely apparent to me as my hearing loss has worsened that I benefit immensely from slower debates both in-person and online. However, this is especially true of online debates. I have discovered that I have a very hard time following extremely fast debates online. I'm not looking for conversational speed, but I do need a good 15-20% reduction in rate of delivery. If you can't or don't want to slow down, I would really prefer you don't pref me. I cannot stress enough how important for me it is for you to slow down.

I have tinnitus and hearing loss and both have gotten worse over the past few years. What this means for you is that I have a hard time getting tags and transitions when everything is the same volume and tone, so please try to make those portions of the debate clear. I also have an extremely hard time hearing the speech when people talk over it. If you're worried about this stuff, please just slow down and you'll be fine.

Here's the stuff I'm guessing you want to know about the most:

01. Please add me to the chain: dontputmeontheemailchain@gmail.com

02. I follow along with speech docs to help me make faster decisions. If you think clipping has occurred, bring it up because I'm not watching for that.

03. Yes, I will vote on framework. Yes, I will vote on impact turns to framework. Along these lines, Affs can have plans or not.

04. I love CP/DA debates. I'm generally open to most CPs too, except for conditions CPs. I really hate conditions CPs. I vote on them, but it's usually because no one knows what artificial competition is anymore. But, yes, please CPs. Veto cheato, con-con, national ref, consult, unilat, etc. But beware of...

05. Read more theory. Go for theory more. No one expects it. You win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

06. When trying to decide DAs, I tend to first figure out how much of the Aff is "left" vs. how much of the DA is "left" after all mitigating arguments have been weighed. This is especially true in CP/DA debates where I first try to determine how much of the Aff the CP has obviated and then weigh whatever remains of the Aff against whatever remains of the DA.

07. Impact turns > Link turns

08. I think there's such thing as "no risk of a link."

09. I try really hard to vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know. I am generally very expressive, so you can often tell if I understand a thing or not. Along these lines, though, I often need help in the form of you explaining to me how to read a piece of evidence or what an argument means for other arguments in the debate.

10. All that said, please just do what you're good at and we'll all be fine.

Note about points: Unless I tell you in the post-round that you did something worth getting bad points for, my points aren't actually an attempt to punish you or send a message or anything like that. Historically I've given high points and I want to make sure I keep up with the community because points are arbitrary and silly so I don't want anyone to miss because I'm just out of touch or whatever.

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 20+ years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid to high 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

Obstinate side-stepping and refusal to answer CX questions makes me grumpy and is a good way to lower your speaker points. So is talking over your opponent and refusing to give them the time and space to answer the questions that you've asked.

Other things: If your highlighting is so fragmented that it doesn't sound like actual sentences, I'm likely to disregard the evidence.

------------------

***Paradigm for Collegiate Advocacy Research & Debate (CARD)***

I do my best to apply the guidelines for CARD critics, which means an emphasis on evaluating the debate through the lenses of public advocacy and quality research. This means an equal emphasis on both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of proof. For those of you who also compete in cross-examination style policy debate, this means that an argument isn't necessarily true just because it's dropped. The burden is on each debater to make their arguments plausibly compelling. I try to minimize specific personal biases that I might have so I will of course vote for things that I don't necessarily believe are true, but arguments should be crafted in a reasoned and compelling way for them to weigh in the decision.

The governing rules for the event are the first filter that will frame my decision. Because I don't think that being well-versed in debate theory or "debate about debate" should be a barrier to entry for this format, I will intervene if I think that a team's presentation or argument hasn't met the burdens outlined in the CARD philosophy statement. A couple specifics of note:

Avoid fast speaking. This format is not a technical race. If I think that you're speaking excessively quickly, then your arguments are likely to carry less weight - or potentially even be disregarded entirely.

Fiat is a complicated topic, but I interpret the rules to say that it is limited to the resolutional actor - for both the affirmative and negative. This means no Agent Counterplans, and kritik alternatives (if fiated) are also limited to the resolutional actor and what it is realistically capable of doing.

Contradictory and conditional arguments are likely to carry less weight in my decision. These run contrary to the advocacy goals of the activity. At a minimum, perceived tension or contradiction between arguments will mean that they are less persuasive. In more extreme situations, I may disregard them from my decision.

I did NDT debate at Arizona State in college (‘86-90). I’m an attorney practicing civil litigation so now professionally debating. I coached all events for a high school from 2010-2023 and judged hundreds of rounds in policy, LD, PF, Congress and IE’s so think I’m fairly up to speed on styles and arguments.

I don't have strong opinions what arguments should or should not be made. I'm fine with critiques, framework, theory and performance but also like "traditional" (plan, solvency, topicality and disad) debates. My verbal paradigm when I'm asked is that I have probably seen it all and have voted for it all some point. I am fine with speed and will take a flash of the speeches to get a better idea of the evidence as it is being presented. My RFD's are based on in-round arguments. I really enjoy a good debate.

he/him

jacksonspecker@gmail.com yes please include me in your email chain. 1AC should be sent 1 minute before the round start time, I interpret the start time as when the 1AC should start speaking. If I am not present you can still send the doc. Any time lost at the beginning just means that I will have to make a quicker decision (results may vary).

Debate is a game, have fun playing.

History with Debate:

Debated 3 years at Kearney High School (MO) (2010 - 2013) doing PF

Debated at Missouri state for 2 years (2015/16 and 2016/17) doing NDT/CEDA and NFA LD.

Graduate assistant coach at Northern Iowa for 2 years (2017/18 and 2018/19).

Current part time assistant coach at Johnson County Community College.

Full time I work in the public sector, updating public health systems to accommodate policy changes.

Quick Thoughts:

1. I feel like it is my job as a judge to not let my thoughts influence my decision of who did the better debating. However, It will inevitably happen. So you do what you do best and I will try my best as a judge. What I am really saying is I am not an argument processing machine, mistakes will happen.

2. You should debate as if I have little background and experience in the area you are talking about. It seems that it would serve anyone best to take the time and develop clear and well-constructed warrants. This will limit my ability to misunderstand your argument.

3. In my experience, people can take this activity too seriously. Humor will be rewarded.

4. Specificity is good, will be preferred over general claims/arguments.

5. Read Arguments that you enjoy. If you enjoy them I will probably enjoy them more as a judge.

6. I tend to find myself more in line with the tech>truth.

7. One conditional position for the neg is not abusive I will never process this as a reason to reject the team.

8. In T debates I generally think limits are good. Standards should be a way to explain how the debate space should divide the topic, I don't care about "in-round abuse"

9. I am not a big fan of debaters quoting my paradigm in round. This is not a contract, just the current state of my debate thoughts. Those thoughts can change (even mid round).

10. I do not like any form of speed bad arguments, this is not to say that I understand everything perfectly there is a limit to what I can understand in terms of speed. I don't think I understand how an interp on this can work.

11. I flow straight down on each page.

12. I prefer you call me by name rather than 'judge'

13. If you call the politics DA the "tix da" ill drop your speaks.

14. Email chains are far superior to speechdrop, being quick and effective at emails is one of the most real world skills debate can offer

15. typically I have the speech doc and my flow both on my laptop, I strongly prefer that people use the condense feature on verbatim so I'm not scrolling through your evidence for too long.

16. For K’s, in most instances I think the K should include a competitive alt. I’m not one who thinks links is a DA to case or a reason it can’t solve is all that compelling of a reason to vote neg.

17. I need "pen" time on theory, typing is faster than writing but im not a court stenographer, I likely need you to slow down some to capture what you are saying.

How do I flow the round?

As I mentioned above, I like to be on the email chain and I will pull up documents during the speeches. I typically will have a split screen with a flow in excel and whatever speech doc is being read. I do not flow just from the doc but I like to read 1 card all the way through with each debater to ensure no intentional skipping/cheating is occurring. I still listen to speeches and will flow if something is not in the speech doc. However, on PERMS you need to include in the speech doc accurately and update after the speech if some where not read OR slow down so I can flow. I cant catch like 5 perms in 10 seconds and get that accurately recorded. On Theory you should probably slow down a tad if it is something you are wanting to go for later in the debate.

How I approach my decision

At the end of the debate I ask one questions before I start looking at the my flows. "Can I explain my decision to my friends?" This means that I have to have a decent grasp of what you are advocating for, so if it is high theory, I think that your final speech might be the most effective at winning my ballot if you have good overviews at the top of the speech. The longer time I spend outside of debate and away from the classroom, the more I forget about how some of these theoretical positions function, so probably want to do more explanation there. From this point I will start to look at flows and evaluate the warrants and evidence of the relevant args in the round. Then once I have a more nuanced view of how these warrants are interacting, I will start to think of the 'two worlds' that are possible in the round and evaluate the consequences of each team and if those consequences are likely. After all of that I should be able to come to a decision. If I am told to use a different model for making a decision I will try to, but know that is not my default process so results may vary.

Quick overview of my thoughts on speaker points

I think I am on the lower end of speaks, I will be evaluating after the 2023/2024 season to bring this more in line with what the majority of people's speaks might look like.

Novice round? I give speaker points in a novice round on their own scale relative to other novices.

JV round? I give speaker points on the same scale as I evaluate open debate. This means if you are in JV typically I feel that I am around the 28.25 as statistical median.

Open Round? I think that 28.5 is the number that represents an "average" debater. someone who I think would go 3-3 at a regional tournament. 28.8 is probably someone who clears at regional tournament. 29.1 is someone who can clear at a national tournament. 29.5 is someone who is advancing deep into elimination rounds at a national tournament. Anything about that is amazing. I don't think a 30/30 exists.

Debate Scales

The following format is stolen from Jeff Buntin (Northwestern)

Feelings-------------------------------------X-----Dead inside

Policy------------X---------------------------------K

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---X---------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------------X---------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"------------------X-----I only read what you read

Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

CX about impacts-------------------------------X-CX about links and solvency

AT: -------------------------------------------------X------- A2:

While I have your attention

if you sneak in a Tim Robinson quote… I’d love it